[asmr]

If you dig a lot you will find a footprint. There is evidence that there was a small core team and that satoshi may not be a single person, if it is, he is most likely to be Wei Dai. The other likely alternative is of course the hypothetical state-backed actor.

[Alupis]

> There is evidence that there was a small core team and that satoshi may not be a single person

"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." - Benjamin Franklin

It seems highly improbable that a team of any size would have been successful at keeping this a secret for this long, let alone not wrestle for control of vast BTC wealth.

[Breza]

I find the theory interesting that the creator (or creators) ended up in jail and plan to rug as soon as they're released.

[ezst]

I would assume such a team would understand that very well, and would cut itself from that wealth by relinquishing access to the wallet

[Alupis]

I think this is a very naïve interpretation of human nature, one supported by zero history.

[dist-epoch]

Wei Dei is one of my suspects too, mostly because of Crypto++, but not only.

Why do you suspect is Wei Dei, was there any reveals regarding this in the lasts few years?

[idontwantthis]

What is the rationale behind a state creating BTC?

[boppo1]

I have a pet theory that the smart people at the NSA are aware that politicians with 4 year terms aren't effective at long term financial planning. The current debt situation coupled with the last ~30 years of mostly loose monetary policy has set the US up for serious problems if it doesn't come up with another world-changer like the ICE, electric light, or internet. Hence, Bitcoin is a hedge industry could embrace against a failing dollar.

I know the US isn't solely or originally responsible for those, but boy it sure ran the ball a long distance.

[kadoban]

As far as the US government is concerned, this primary effect of Bitcoin and other crypto is a weakening of their ability to enforce sanctions and prevent money laundering.

If Bitcoin was a government program, it probably wasn't the US government. I'd guess North Korea, Iran, Russia, etc. One of the countries heavily bothered by US-led sanctions, or at least one that doesn't already have an important ~global currency to disrupt.

It seems to have grown mostly in the English-speaking world to start with, but that doesn't seem like a fatal flaw of my theory.

[ErikBjare]

The same could be said for Tor and onion routing, which was a US government program.

[kadoban]

Tor was created to allow contacting people securely from within restrictive regimes, wasn't it? Doesn't seem like the same thing to me. The US has a history of free speech advocacy, not of encouraging others to be able to spend money freely.

It's also a big government though, it is quite possible that some part would have driven something like Bitcoin for its own reasons. It just doesn't strike me as very likely compared to the alternatives.

Most likely, in my estimation, is still probably it being started by non-government to be clear.

[dmitrygr]

Trust me, If USA's economy collapses, no amount of bitcoin will save you. Nothing will

[wil421]

Fund or obfuscate funding for programs they want but the public or political appetite doesn’t want to know about it.

[krapp]

That's already what black budgets are for. And funding drug cartels.

[reaperman]

Moving money in/out of places which are hostile to USA. Paying assets in hostile locales.

[krapp]

I'm pretty sure the US can already do both, and that neither of those would be easier with a US backed cryptocoin.

Literal American cash dollars (which tend to work everywhere, even anti-American regimes) under the table would be more secure. But then assets in other countries are probably just paid through shell companies in those countries with local currency or something.

[lazide]

And Tor?

Similar possibilities.

[tremarley]

On 21/08/2008 Satoshi claims he was not aware of Wei Dei’s “B-Money” paper.

[diggan]

On the other hand, if they were Wei Dei, they wouldn't exactly say "Ah yes of course, I wrote this paper but don't use that name, use Satoshi" but they would of course say "Oh I didn't know, I'll put a reference to it in my paper".

[tremarley]

True, but then Satoshi’s foresight is unmatched.

How would Satoshi know that people would scrutinise their emails 16 years later